"Not everything in government is a confidence matter," is a Globe editorial that needs to be read widely and could not come at a better time. The 43 confidence votes that Mr. Harper has wielded over the opposition are an abuse of the mandate he received as a Prime Minister in a minority government. Mr. Harper should be held to account for this unprecedented thumbing of his nose at the Canadian public for doing so. Where have the media been, however? Where have the voices in our democracy been to speak out about the offensive 43 confidence votes? It's been viewed as a sport, if you will, to simply point at Mr. Dion and ignore the unspoken elephant in the room, Mr. Harper's conduct as Prime Minister.
In the wake of Mr. Harper's mutterings this week and his Justice Minister's threatening more confidence votes immediately upon their return, this editorial conveys an understanding of the damage Mr. Harper is inflicting and seeks to continue to inflict upon our parliamentary democracy:
Most public opinion polls taken in the months leading up to this federal election campaign suggested that another minority government for Stephen Harper's Conservatives was very likely. Mr. Harper was well aware of this, when he asked Governor-General Michaëlle Jean to dissolve Parliament; indeed he predicted another minority on the campaign's first day. Now, however, he is acting as though he would in effect refuse to accept that result.
For the second time in two days, Mr. Harper announced yesterday that his party would reintroduce anti-crime legislation that the previous Parliament did not pass – and that, if the opposition stood in the way, he would be ready to force another election over it. His aides indicated that the bills would be put to the opposition as take-it-or-leave-it propositions.
This is not how a minority government should work. Confidence votes are to be limited to money bills and measures at the core of the government's agenda – not routinely invoked by a prime minister whenever he wishes to put pressure on other parties to support less important bills. If Canadians elect the Conservatives with another minority, they will be explicitly saying that they have not entrusted them with full power over the legislative agenda – that they expect them to try to work with the other parties.
It is easy to understand why Mr. Harper does not believe he would need to make that effort. If they remain in opposition, the Liberals will likely begin another costly and all-consuming leadership campaign. In the midst of it, they will be in no shape to enter yet another general election campaign.
That does not mean, however, that the Liberals and other opposition parties should be unable to call Mr. Harper's bluff. If they have deep-seated objections to an anti-crime initiative, or any other bill, then they should vote against it. Mr. Harper should not put the Governor-General in the highly controversial constitutional position of having to think about declining a request to call another election in the near future and inviting the opposition government to form a government.
This campaign is a consequence of what Mr. Harper interpreted as political stalemate. He cannot keep creating dubious scenarios until he gets the result he wants. (emphasis added)
And that, in its entirety, is worthy of agreement.
I cannot tell you how heartening this editorial was to read. The time is long overdue that Mr. Harper's free pass for his disrespect of our democracy be revoked.
Stumble It!
It's also why I feel the GG should not have dissolved Parliament (other than the fixed election 'legislation'.) He was getting things done by wielding the confidence 'stick'.
It is in my view undemocratic to make 43 bills a matter of confidence in less than two years thus forcing parliamentarians to chouse between passing or abstaining on a poorly worded or conceived bill or forcing a premature election.
I would go even further and say that the ONLY vote that should result in the falling of the government is one that clearly says "This house has no confidence in........" thus stopping the political game that these clowns (and that includes all currently elected partys) seem to want to play at the expense of our country and democracy.
My understanding is that despite many wishing that the GG should have turned Harper down that she had little choice in the matter without causing a Constitutional melt down.
The wolf is officially in the hen house. Let's see how much damage he causes before the alarm is sounded. Look at what Harper's ideological twin, GW Bush, accomplished in eight years. Give Harper another 3 or 4 years, and Canada will be in the same sinking boat as the good ole USA. By that time, Harper will have eliminated many of the social programs and safeguards, making sure as many Canadians as possible hit the streets scrounging for survival.
I don't often fundamentally disagree with you Dr C but on this one I have to. The use of the confidence vote no doubt "got things done" from Harpers point of view but it is (in my view) a total misuse of that parliamentary tool.
No worries. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I like it better when people don't.
When used for proposals that are not fundamental to governance such a finance bills (and even those should be limited to just that) it is simply a form of dictatorship and a clear indication that the government is unwilling to listen to our elected representatives (whether they belong to the governing party or not) and to consider that just because it is their idea and their bill it cannot be improved upon by consultation and cooperation.
I believe 'matters of confidence' are a set group of bills. Budget and finance are automatically confidence matters. But, IIRC, anything in the Throne speech, or related to the throne speech can be a matter of confidence, at the discretion of the government.
I may not agree with the way Harper did it, but he did use the rules of parliament against itself. I thought that was a great political move to hold on to a minority government. That he misused the intention of matters of confidence to me is a side issue. The rules allowed it, he used them in his favour. Perhaps the rules should be clarified so no one else can abuse them.
With the strong probability of more minority governments in the future ALL out political partys must put Canada and the Electorate first and be MUCH less partisan. Many countries run quite well with minority or coalition governments but it take a much more cooperative attitude than we currently see in the House.
It is in my view undemocratic to make 43 bills a matter of confidence in less than two years thus forcing parliamentarians to chouse between passing or abstaining on a poorly worded or conceived bill or forcing a premature election.
I would go even further and say that the ONLY vote that should result in the falling of the government is one that clearly says "This house has no confidence in........" thus stopping the political game that these clowns (and that includes all currently elected partys) seem to want to play at the expense of our country and democracy.
Agreed. I believe procedure for losing a bill deemed a 'matter of confidence' is that an 'motion of confidence' is voted on, and if the government loses that, an election is called. I think the opposition could have defeated a confidence bill, then passed the confidence motion to keep things running. But the Liberals would rather abstain from the vote.
My understanding is that despite many wishing that the GG should have turned Harper down that she had little choice in the matter without causing a Constitutional melt down.
To that, I say 'let it melt'. Mostly to expose the sham of the 'fixed election date legislation' that Harper passed. At least we'd have some interesting times in Canadian politics, and we'd have a GG who would show she isn't a puppet of the PMO.
To me the misuse of parliamentary "rules" and conventions is THE central issue. I agree that what seem to be gidelines and conventions rather than rules should be updated, clarified and followed by ALL MPs. One of the problems seems to be that even if there are hard and fast rules that there are no penalties for breaking them (particularly for the governing party) except perhaps being called before a parliamentary committee where partisan politics ( up to and including walking out and/or refusing to appear for which there also seems to be no penalty) will be used to stall or disrupt any inquiry. In short they are restricted only by their respect for democratic process of which many, particularly the present lot, have very little of! (The misuse of MPs mailing privilages to mail out excessive volumes of highly partisan 'flyers' in the 3 months prior to calling the election (to taxpayers at their own expense)is but one example of this.)
Dr C said "I think the opposition could have defeated a confidence bill, then passed the confidence motion to keep things running."
That is not how I understand it works, if it were so I cannot believe that such a tactic has never been used. So far as I can tell once a bill is declared a matter of confidence if defeated the government fall. Period. The oppositions job is to oppose and to suggest alternatives, work in committee to come to consensus and to hold government excesses in check. The Harper regime does not seem to want to follow those parliamentary conventions (not that the others are a whole lot better) at all but to rule as a dictatorship. If every government bill is to be a matter of confidence then all but the government MPs may as well go home and thus it makes a mockery of us "electing" a local representative.
I do not subscribe to the view that a minority government (or for that matter a majority) voted in by 30 or 40 percent of the VOTING public (probably 15 to 20% of those eligible) has the right to dictate to parliament what is and is not an acceptable new law for all Canadians. That is parliaments job, let them do it.
As I have said before on these pages I am much more concerned with protecting (and enhancing) the process than the individual pieces of legislation proposed. We already seem to have an Oligarchy, I don?t want to see that move any further towards a Dictatorship.
I will repeat for the benefit of those readers that are unable to see the difference my final questions in a previos posting?.
"Democracy"
-The presence of institutions and procedures through which citizens can express preferences about policies and leaders; existence of institutionalized constraints on the power of the executive; and the guarantee of civil liberties to all citizens.
"Oligarchy"
-A form of government where political power effectively rests with a small, elite segment of society
I will let you decide which description is the closest to the form of government we have experienced of late. I think my view is quite clear. If anyone can explain how any of the above actions enhance our democracy or increase the "openness and accountability" of our government as promised during the 2006 campaign I would really like to hear the explanation!
See my earlier comments at http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/6243 ... ic-actions
And an update in this thread http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2359 ... e#comments
Dr C said "I think the opposition could have defeated a confidence bill, then passed the confidence motion to keep things running."
That is not how I understand it works, if it were so I cannot believe that such a tactic has never been used. So far as I can tell once a bill is declared a matter of confidence if defeated the government fall. Period.
You are correct, I looked it up.
The government can fall ether by losing the vote on a 'Matter of Confidence' (Budget) or 'Motion of Confidence' ("This house has no confidence in . . " ).
If anyone can explain how any of the above actions enhance our democracy or increase the "openness and accountability" of our government as promised during the 2006 campaign I would really like to hear the explanation!
On that, I rate him as 'epic fail'. From day one, when he appointed a campaign organizer to the Senate and made him the Minister for (Pork Barrel) HRDC, thus making the Minister unaccountable to the House; to his controlling of the Media, to the current campaign where reporters are pre-screened and their questions pre-vetted.
Harper is the exact opposite of what he claims to be. The worst part is, people don't see him like that.
Garth Turner Liberal MP writes in his blog this evening?..
"I was furnished with a copy of the letter below, which was sent by senior members of the Conservative riding association to its members."
The letter says in part..
?The back room boys in Ottawa have appointed Lisa Raitt as the Conservative candidate for our riding. The decision was announced at a closed door meeting that you as a member were entitled to attend, but were never notified of. As long time members of the riding association we are opposed to this action and do not support her candidacy."
It concludes in asking fellow conservatives to NOT support the appointed candidate!
"As long time Conservatives of this riding association we are asking that you not support this candidate, when called upon to donate money or accept a lawn sign we ask that you say no and tell the caller why you are refusing. The party has shown a total disrespect for you by denying you the right to select your candidate"
There is hope yet, even the conservatives own members can see how corrupt and undemocratic the Harper regime is???
from http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2008/09/26/t ... of-halton/
http://www.prisonjustice.ca/starkravena ... _0208.html
Harper is the exact opposite of what he claims to be. The worst part is, people don't see him like that."
I note that he has turned down an interview on CBC where viewers pose undisclosed questions to the leaders, all the other leaders have had their turn but Harper cannot/ will not tolerate unscreened questions. Reporters are not allowed even in the vicinity of a “press conference” or announcement without pre screening. What does this say about our future democracy if he gets back in?
I note also that MANY conservative candidates are declining to attend all candidate debates, the excuses are many but the attempt to slide under the radar is obvious.
I do have to give the Harper regime points for attacking their opponents for doing something (wrong?) at the same time as doing exactly the same thing themselves. Divide and conquer, spin and lie, hide and avoid, attack and spend, you gota admit they are bloody good at it …….. And yet the polls say they are still in the running, I simply do not understand it. Must be the negative ad’s, I guess you CAN buy an election!